Debates of April 29th, 2009

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 22, 2009, consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made Monday, April 27, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-241 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion.)

Vote #57

And the result of the division having been announced: yeas 138; nays 138

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

As hon. members are aware, in circumstances such as today's it is customary, for this Speaker at least, to vote in favour of a motion at second reading.

This is the third time I have had to vote on a second reading motion to break a tie, and on both previous occasions I voted yea, so today I will also vote yea and declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion.

Replacement Workers

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made Monday, April 27, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 294 in the name of the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #58

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

Order. The Chair has notice of a number of points of order. Before I deal with those, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 29 minutes.

The first point of order I will hear today is from the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

Response by Minister to Oral Question

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

We have taken steps through our Colombo mission to expedite these applications.

I have contacted the CIC 1-800 hotline and checked the websites of CIC, Foreign Affairs and the Canadian High Commission in Colombo. There is no mention of this on any of the websites. The bureaucrat I spoke to had no knowledge of any move to expedite applications from Colombo.

I am asking that the minister take this opportunity to admit that he misled the House yesterday or that his bureaucrats are misleading me today. Who did the misleading, the minister or the bureaucrats?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I think the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt will recognize that this does not appear to be a point of order. It appears to be a dispute as to facts. He may want to ask a question about this another day, but it does not strike me as a point of order.

Is the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism rising on the same point? I do not really want to get into a debate here.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly not a point of order and neither are any of the allegations included in that statement accurate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There we are. I have heard enough. This is clearly a dispute as to facts and I would urge hon. members who have disputes to ask another question. It is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate and what is not.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also has a point of order.

Statement Pursuant to S.O. 31

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to appeal to you regarding being cut off after two sentences of my S.O. 31, otherwise known as statements by members. Mr. Speaker, I believe you said that personal attacks were not allowed during our S.O. 31 statements. I think that if you examine my words, you will find that what I said were statements of fact, not as you described.

I believe that my statement should have been allowed. I was explaining what people said before a vote, on the record, and then how they voted or did not vote. In my planned statement, of which I delivered only two sentences before being cut off, I make this comparison four times.

The statement I was going to make was that the NDP member for Western Arctic campaigned against the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle and last week he forgot to vote against it. The NDP member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, “I am very pleased to tell the House that for eight—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order, but he cannot use the point of order to read the statement he otherwise could not have made. I made a ruling. Is he appealing the ruling or suggesting that I review the matter? Is that his request? I think he should stick with the request rather than read the statement again.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was informed that I would be allowed to read that, so I was not pushing the envelope in any way. Yes, I would like you to review it. There were partisan statements from other members during members' statements prior to my turn in the rotation and they were not cut off.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a major question of policy difference here and I request that you review the actions that were taken.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will happily look at the matter again.

Is the hon. member for Vancouver East rising on the same point?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. This has come up before. I do want to say that we support the ruling you made originally because we believe that, particularly in statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 where there is no right of reply, for members to launch personal attacks on other members is completely inappropriate.

This has come up before. We support your ruling. We believe there should be respect in the House. For members to use statements to attack other members is completely unacceptable. In this particular case, the attack was on the NDP. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we urge you to stand by your ruling.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The issue with the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North was he dealt with specific members in the House in his statement. In my view, the earlier statements he referred to, there were some quotations from members, but that is it. Then the attacks appeared to go against an entire party for being inconsistent, or whatever other words members may have used. I did not memorize them all and I would not.

There is a difference between an attack on a party's position or a party's apparent decision from an attack on an individual member. That is what happened in the course of the hon. member's statement. He went after two members for their vote on a particular item and the statements those individuals had made. In my view it constituted an attack.

There was one very similar one earlier in the week, quoting, I believe, the same hon. members. I did not get up at that time, but I did speak to the hon. member who made the statement and indicated my displeasure and unwillingness to countenance this again. The member received a warning from me. It was not done in public; it was done in private.

In this case, being the second time this week I have heard the same statement, or a very similar statement, I moved to end it.

In the circumstances, I would urge hon. members to look at what they are going to say. Attacks on party positions are entirely permitted. I have not ruled those out of order. I have simply said that attacks on individual members are out of order because, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said in her statement, there is no opportunity for a general reply. We have lots of those during question period, but there are opportunities for supplementary questions or responses to questions during that period.

Standing Order 31s are not intended as debate. They are statements by members. I quoted that in my original ruling on this subject and indicated very clearly that they should not be used for attacks on individual members. It was the individual part of it that I objected to in the hon. member's statement and it was on this basis that I interrupted him. I am sure he will take it to heart in future.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking further clarification so all members can clearly understand just exactly where it is that you intend to draw the line. If I am not mistaken, I heard some members opposite attacking individuals on this side.

Is it the case, Mr. Speaker, that you intend to allow an attack on a minister? That minister is still an individual. If a minister is being attacked, is that going to be allowed? If we are trying to hold members accountable for a disparity between what they say and what they actually do, that is somehow not allowed and you consider that a personal attack.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

If the government House leader feels there was a statement that constituted a personal attack which I missed today, I would be happy to see it.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Maybe I missed it. Maybe I was engaged in a discussion at the time and did not hear it. I will double-check. If there was a statement, I can assure the government House leader that I will have words with the member who made it. I do not recall hearing another one today.

There was one that I had some reservations about, but it moved on from the quotes of an individual member to something else, and it appeared to go okay. I did not hear every word in the statement, as often happens, but I will double-check. If there was a breach, I will come back to the House or at least to the hon. member and deal with the issue.

I would not want to have the government House leader or any other House leader upset that I was not applying the rules fairly and equitably on all sides.

Comments of Member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to rise on a point of order in regard to what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said yesterday.

She said that I was criticizing the government for investing too much in the west, and then she spoke of the World Police & Fire Games coming to B.C.

The member knows that no money was going to the police and fire games until after we issued a release demanding that it be funded, as the Georgia Straight reported. The government would have been quite happy to sweep the whole thing under the carpet and fund flagpoles and murals in Conservative ridings if I had not issued that release.

The member should not tell lies. She should tell the truth. She should not mislead the public and the House when I cannot defend it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member knows that suggesting members have lied is not parliamentary and I am sure he would not want to persist with the suggestion.